SACRAMENTO, California, June 29, 2018 /PRNewswire-HISPANIC PR WIRE/–  Alcohol Justice and the California Alcohol Policy Alliance (CAPA) expressed disgust as a one vote-majority of the California State Assembly Governmental Organization Committee (GO) voted to allow Senator Wiener’s dangerous SB 905 4 a.m. bar bill experiment to proceed. 

“In the face of overwhelming evidence that two more hours of alcohol sales would increase death and injury, a one-vote majority of this negligent committee sided with the author. They turned a blind eye street violence, ER visits, impaired driving, and traffic chaos,” stated Bruce Lee Livingston, Executive Director / CEO of Alcohol Justice.

Fatal DUI is a chronic, worsening problem for California. “We saw a surge in traffic fatalities in 2016, a 16.2% increase with over 1000 people losing their lives in DUI related crashes,” stated Lynne Brown, Program Manager/Law Enforcement Liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). “Putting freshly impaired drivers on the road at 4 or 5 a.m., with commuters and carpoolers, highway workers and families will, based on data from areas who have adopted later service hours for alcohol, most certainly lead to more deaths on California roadways. For that reason, MADD California is opposed to SB 905.”

“In an ongoing display of hypocrisy, Senator Wiener once again evoked the trauma of losing an aunt to a DUI crash, claiming he would never do anything to cause that kind of harm to others,” stated Michael Scippa, Public Affairs Director at Alcohol Justice. “Yet this is the second bill he has authored that will surely add to the current annual catastrophe of alcohol-related harm in California. His statement defies common sense. In addition, by calling the opponents’ testimony ‘hyperbole’ he insulted the experts and the peer-reviewed science that proves more harm follows two or more hours of late night alcohol service.”

“As health professionals promoting the common good, we believe that health considerations should trump the financial profits of special interests in considering changes to public policy,” reported Mark B Horton, MD, MSPH, Health Leadership Consultant, Prior State Health Officer and Director, California Department of Public Health. “Health versus profits–the choice should be easy.”

In response to the author’s continued mischaracterization of SB 905 as a ‘local control’ measure, there was consensus among opponents that there is no such thing as local control in alcohol policy and that the harm from one city’s decision to change last-call times will “splash” over to every surrounding community. SB 905, like three other failed 4 a.m. bar bills over the past 15 years, will spread alcohol overconsumption, loss of life, injury, and nuisance across the state.

Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Research Manager at Alcohol Justice, summarized the existing evidence supporting how the acute effects of extending alcohol sales would spread to “Splash Zones” surrounding the seven cities mentioned in the bill: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Long Beach, West Hollywood, and Palm Springs. He also commented that “…a true ‘pilot project’ would cover a small sample, not the 76% of the state’s population that will be exposed to additional alcohol-related harms if SB 905 becomes law.” He also stated that “…the bill does not contain any language detailing the collection or analysis of data, or even how to pay for this so-called ‘pilot project.'” He concluded his comments by stating, “…there is no evidence of ‘California Exceptionalism’ suggesting we’ll be immune to the harms that affect everyone else. We’re subject to gravity just like the rest of the world.”

“The science is clear on the dangers of keeping bars in California open an extra two hours as proposed by Senator Wiener’s bill, SB 905,”  said Ramon Castellblanch, Ph.D., President, Quality Healthcare Concepts, Professor Emeritus, Health Education, San Francisco State. “All harms related to alcohol will increase The source of this conclusion is of the highest standards, coming from a team based at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control after its rigorous analysis of all available research. “In contrast, Senator Weiner’s claim that there is no correlation between extended bar hours and drunk-driving wrecks totally ignores the dozens of factors confounding an analysis of a state’s rate of drunk-driving wrecks.  His claim is not research in any sense; it is just industry-backed obfuscation of the hazards of his bill.” 

Dr. Castellblanch was then subjected to an inappropriate, ageist remark by self-professed “millennial” Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell). Low directed a personal question to the expert asking for his personal experience in going out late for a drink. Dr. Castellblanch responded, “…anecdotal evidence of anyone here is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the research from the CDC says which found more harms when keeping the bars open another two hours.”

This data most often referred to and consistently ignored or dismissed by Wiener & his supporters came from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) task force led by Jonathan Fielding, M.D., M.P.H., M.A., M.B.A, Distinguished Professor UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and UCLA Geffen School of Medicine. The U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force found in a peer-reviewed, global meta-analysis that every 2-hour increase in last-call times results in greater vehicle crash injuries and E.R. admissions. (Hahn et al., 2010) Dr. Fielding stated, “…I have no reason to believe that an increase in hours of sale anywhere in the U.S. would have different results.”

California currently suffers over 10,500 alcohol-related deaths and $34 billion in costs annually. The California Office of Traffic Safety has reported that fatal DUI is a chronic, worsening problem for the state. Between 2014 and 2016, alcohol-related crash deaths rose 21%. That number can only go up with two additional hours of alcohol consumption. Thus, the only benefit of selling alcohol between 2 and 4 a.m. will be greater profits to bar, restaurant, and club owners in the party zones the bill will create. While the public and all levels of government will be forced to continue to cover the costs of cleaning up the mess that follows.

The eleven members of the California Assembly Governmental Organization Committee who voted YES on Wiener’s poorly constructed and funded seven-city, five-year experiment:

• Aguiar-Curry (Winters) 
• Berman (Palo Alto)
• Bonta (Alameda)
• Eduardo Garcia (Coachella)
• Gipson (Carson)
• Gloria (San Diego)
• Gray, Chair, (Merced)
• Jones-Sawyer (Los Angeles)
• Kiley (Rocklin)
• Low (Campbell)
• Rubio (Baldwin Park)

Six Assemblymembers voted NO: 

• Acosta (Santa Clarita)
• Bigelow (O’Neals)
• Cooley (Rancho Cordova)
• Gallagher (Yuba City)
• Lackey (Palmdale)
• Levine (San Rafael)

Four Assemblymembers did not vote: 

• Cooper (Elk Grove)
• Daly (Anaheim)
• Salas (Bakersfield)
• Waldron (Escondido)

The bill now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where the Governor’s Finance Department opinion will have great importance. There is no language in SB 905 for additional funding for a true “pilot study”, or for a definitive source of revenue for local enforcement or emergency services to deal with projected increases in alcohol-related violence and traffic crashes after 4 a.m.

For more information or to TAKE ACTION, please visit AlcoholJustice.org.

Logo – https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/147418/alcohol_justice_logo.jpg

SOURCE Alcohol Justice